Talk:Kenilworth Park and Aquatic Gardens

GA review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I've failed this article for lack of broad and focused coverage. As a start, there could be more detailed coverage of the biology, four sentences don't begin to do that justice. The history, you might try looking at the Arcadia Publishing titles that surely exist for the area, if they can do them for my miniscule small town, they must have some for the Washington DC area. Check local history websites for more information on the history. Lastly, the "Park today" section, at the very least give a longer description of the recreational facilities. Does the local Audubon society do a bird count there? What presidents visited the area? What does a Category II Landmark mean, why was it named that? Use the National Register of Historic Places angle to fill out more details.

If you disagree, you are welcome to take the article to Good article reassessment. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)